And they have brought from the abstract of 1815 the account of the property assessed in each county under schedule A.

They have also thought it useful to annex an account of the average price of corn in England and Wales, in such of the years ending on the 25th of March, included in their abstracts, as have occurred since the establishment of the office of receiver of corn returns. The accounts of these averages already before the House are generally made up to a period of the year not corresponding with that of the poorrate accounts; and as comparisons are sometimes made between the amount of the poor-rates and the price of wheat, they trust that this account of the prices may be acceptable to the

House.

Your Committee do not feel them selves at liberty to make any observations which are not suggested by the mere inspection of the several ab

stracts.

These observations, they trust, the House will permit them to commence, by the statement of a few results drawn from the returns of the earlier periods, which indeed have been formerly stated to the House, but which it may be useful to place here :

The pecuniary amount of the levies, by way of poor's rates progressively, and very largely increased from 1789 to 1812:

The amount of the sums applied to the relief of the poor, increased within the same period progressively, and very largely :

The amount expended for other purposes increased progressively, and still more largely than the expenditure on account of the poor.

In reference to comparisons with the year 1803, your Committee have to observe, that there is no account of any average of years between 1783-4

5, and 1813-14-15; nor any account of any single year between those periods, except that of the year 1803. The House will judge, whether there would have been any materially different result, if an average of 1801-2-3 had been taken, instead of the year 1803 only. However this may be, it is clear, that in 1812-13 the expenditure, both for the poor and other purposes, greatly exceeded the amount in 1803. Since 1812, the total expenditure in both branches has still further increased, and the remark made upon the former statements, that the expenditure for other purposes rose more rapidly than the expenditure on the poor, is not applicable to the later years.

The subsequent remarks your Committee will confine to the amount of money expended upon the poor within the last eight years.

It appears, on an inspection of the table of averages, that the expenditure has continued to increase from 1812 to 1820 :

But the annual abstract shews, that this increase has not been progressive, year by year, throughout the whole period, and that it is not now progressive.

From the year 1812-1, the amount declined gradually in the two subsequent years, (which were years of war ;) rose again in the next three years, so as to be in 1817-18 greater in pecuniary amount than at any former or subsequent period of which returns exist. In each of the two succeeding years, forming the first and second of the third triennial period, the expenditure declined again, but not very considerably. The returns

for the year 1820-21 recently required, will shew whether the amount has continued to decrease; and your Committee have been informed, that the greater number of the returns which have already been received, exhibit a more or less considerable diminution.

These comparisons are taken from the total amount of England and Wales; your Committee have considered the county abstracts with the view of ascertaining the exceptions which are to be found in particular counties, to the results drawn from a general average.

These exceptions are most numerous as to the first triennial period. In the counties of Durham, Hertford, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey, the amount was considerably greater in 1813-14, than in 1812-13; and in seven other counties of England, and in eight of Wales, there was also a slight excess. But there is no exception to the statement, that the year 1814-15 was below the average of the two earlier years, and below the year immediately preceding.

As to the second period, there are three exceptions to the gradual rise to the year 1817-18, and to the statement that that year was the highest which had at that time been known. In the county of Nottingham, the year 1816-17 was the highest ; and in Wiltshire and Berkshire the year 181213 exhibited an amount which has not since been equalled.

There are more numerous exceptions to the statement, that the year 1817-18 was higher than any subsequent year; for it appears, that in the counties of Devon and Surrey, there was an excess, not inconsiderable, in 1818-19 over the preceding year; and a slight excess in Bedford, Cumberland, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Middlesex, Northampton, Rut

land, Westmoreland, and the East and North Ridings of Yorkshire. In other counties of England there was scarcely a diminution; and in Wales, generally, an excess. In Cumberland, Leicester, Lincoln, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the year 1819-20 shews the greatest amount.

The exceptions to the statement, that as to the two years of the third period, of which there are returns, there was a slight diminution in the second, arise in the counties of Chester, Cumberland, Derby, Durham, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Warwick, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Reverting to the averages, it is to be remarked, that there is no exception to the general excess of the second period over the first; and that Berkshire, Norfolk, and Salop, afford the only exceptions to the general excess of the third period over the second.

At the foot of the table of yearly amounts, the House will find a statement, in which the returns from towns are distinguished from all others. The towns included in this distinction are those which, in the abstract of population in 1811, are set in Roman capitals.

This separate account of the towns affords no exceptions to the general statements which are worthy of particular remark.

It appears that select vestries, under the act 59 Geo. III. c. 12, have been appointed in 2006 parishes; and assistant overseers in 2257. The whole number of parishes, townships, or other sub-divisions, from which returns have been required, is about 14,700.

Your Committee have not thought it necessary to make any selections from the "Observations," which, in conformity with the orders of the House, have in some instances been subjoined by the parish officers to the returns. Many of these are irrelevant;

some, such as the Committee must have noticed with reprobation; but there are others of a different character; and your Committee conceive, that much useful information would be obtained, if parish officers would, whenever their returns exhibit a remarkable variation, whether of excess or diminution, from the preceding year, give some explanation of the causes of the variation.

And here your Committee cannot avoid observing, that returns, stating merely the gross amount of the expenditure, fall very short of what is necessary to enable the House to judge of the nature and causes of the variation in the amount. For that purpose it would be necessary to have accounts, shewing the different circumstances under which relief has been afforded, and the rate and principle of relief adopted in each district. The ablebodied entirely out of employ; the able-bodied earning wages not sufficient for the maintenance of his family; the married, the single, the sick and impotent, the aged, the labourer in husbandry, and the manufacturer or mechanic, should all be distinguished. And it should be known whether the relief is afforded at the discretion of the parishes themselves, or by order of the justices of the peace.

The Committee are not of opinion that returns in this detail could conveniently be called for by order of the House.

It is for the House to consider whether overseers, in rendering their accounts under the act 50 Geo. III. c. 49, should be required, by a new law, to state these or any other particulars, in a prescribed form, so that a more complete and useful account of the expenditure of the poor-rates than any which has hitherto appeared, might be rendered periodically to parliament. July 10, 1821.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY HIS MAJESTY TO CONSIDER THE SUBJECT OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURes.

May it please your Majesty, We, the commissioners appointed by your Majesty for the purpose of considering the subject of weights and measures, have now completed the examination of the standards which we have thought it necessary to compare. The measurements which we have lately performed upon the apparatus employed by the late Sir George Shuckburgh Evelyn, have enabled us to determine with sufficient precision the weight of a given bulk of water, with a view to the fixing the magnitude of the standard of weight; that of length being already determined by the experiments related in our former reports; and we have found by the computations, which will be detailed in the Appendix, that the weight of a cubic inch of distilled water, at 62 deg. of Fahrenheit, is 252.72 grains of the parliamentary standard pound of 1758, supposing it to be weighed in a va

cuum.

We beg leave, therefore, finally to recommend, with all humility, to your Majesty, the adoption of the regula tions and modifications suggested in our former reports, which are principally these:

1. That the parliamentary standard yard, made by Bird in 1760, be henceforth considered as the authentic legal standard of the British empire; and that it be identified by declaring that 39.1393 inches of this standard, at the temperature of 62° of Fahrenheit, have been found equal to the length of a pendulum supposed to vibrate seconds in London, on the level of the sea, and in a vacuum.

2. That the parliamentary standard Troy pound, according to the twopound weight made in 1758, remain unaltered; and that 7000 Troy grains be declared to constitute an avoirdupois pound; the cubic inch of distilled water being found to weigh at 62 deg. in a vacuum, 252.72 parliamentary grains.

3. That the ale and corn gallon be restored to their original equality, by taking, for the statutable common gallon of the British empire, a mean value, such that a gallon of common water may weigh ten pounds avoirdupois in ordinary circumstances, its content being nearly 277.3 cubic inches; and that correct standards of this imperial gallon, and of the bushel, peck, quart, and pint, derived from it, and of their parts, be procured without delay for the exchequer, and for such other offices in your Majesty's dominions as may be judged most convenient for the ready use of your Majesty's subjects.

4. Whether any further legislative enactments are required, for enforcing a uniformity of practice throughout the British empire, we do not feel our selves competent to determine; but it appears to us that nothing would be more conducive to the attainment of this end, than to increase, as far as possible, the facility of a ready recurrence to the legal standards, which we apprehend to be in a great measure attainable by the means we have recommended. It would also, in all probability, be of advantage to give a greater degree of publicity to the appendix of our last report, containing a comparison of the customary measures employed throughout the country.

5. We are not aware that any further services remain for us to perform, in the execution of the commands laid upon us by your Majesty's commission; but if any superintendence of the re

VOL. XIV. PART II.

SIR, I should not have felt it necessary to have made any communication to you, in the present state of the discussions begun at Troppau, and transferred to Laybach, had it not been for a circular communication which has been addressed by the Courts of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, to their several missions, and which his Majesty's government conceive, if not adverted to, might (however unintentionally) convey, upon the subject therein alluded to, very erroneous impressions of the past, as well as of the present, sentiments of the British government.

It has become, therefore, necessary to inform you, that the King has felt himself obliged to decline becoming a party to the measures in question.

These measures embrace two distinct objects:-1st, The establishment of certain general principles for the regulation of the future political conduct of the allies in the cases therein described. 2dly, The proposed mode of dealing, under these principles, with the existing affairs of Naples.

The system of measures proposed under the former head, if to be reciprocally acted upon, would be in direct repugnance to the fundamental laws of this country. But, even if this decisive objection did not exist, the British government would nevertheless regard the principles on which these measures rest, to be such as could not be safely admitted as a system of international law. They are of opinion that their adoption would inevitably sanction, and, in the hands of less beneficent monarchs, might hereafter lead to, a much more frequent and extensive interference in the internal transactions of states, than they are persuaded is intended by the august parties from whom they proceed, or can be reconcilable either with the general interest, or with the efficient authority and dignity, of independent sovereigns. They do not regard the alliance as entitled, under existing treaties, to assume, in their character as allies, any such general powers; nor do they conceive that such extraordinary powers could be assumed, in virtue of any fresh diplomatic transaction among the allied courts, without their either attributing to themselves a supremacy incompatible with the rights of other states, or, if to be acquired through the special accession of such states, without introducing a federative system in Europe not only unwieldy, and ineffectual to its object, but leading to many most serious inconveniences.

With respect to the particular case of Naples, the British government, at the very earliest moment, did not hesitate to express their strongest disapprobation of the mode and circumstance under which that revolution was understood to have been effected; but they, at the same time, expressly declared to the several allied courts, that they should not consider themselves as either called upon, or justified, to advise an interference on the part of

this country; they_fully admitted, however, that other European states, and especially Austria and the Italian powers, might feel themselves differently circumstanced; and they professed that it was not their purpose to prejudge the question as it might affect them, or to interfere with the course which such states might think fit to adopt, with a view to their own security, provided only that they were ready to give every reasonable assurance that their views were not directed to purposes of aggrandizement, subversive of the territorial system of Eu. rope, as established by the late treaties.

Upon these principles, the conduct of his Majesty's government, with regard to the Neapolitan question, has been, from the first moment, uniformly regulated, and copies of the successive instructions sent to the British authorities at Naples for their guidance, have been from time to time transmitted for the information of the allied governments.

With regard to the expectation which is expressed in the circular above alluded to, of the assent of the courts of London and Paris to the more general measures proposed for their adop tion, founded, as it is alleged, upon existing treaties; in justification of its own consistency and good faith, the British government, in withholding such assent, must protest against any such interpretation being put upon the treaties in question, as is therein assumed.

They have never understood these treaties to impose any such obligations; and they have, on various occasions, both in parliament and in their intercourse with the allied governments, distinctly maintained the negative of such a proposition. That they have acted with all possible explicitness upon this subject, would at once appear from reference to the deliberations at